Should we have exams?
The debate so far seems to be centred on whether exams or coursework are better as a means of assessment, but would someone please explain why we need either, that is why we need assessment at all. The acknowledged, and explicit, purpose of assessment seems to be to differentiate between students in terms of ability. As such the exam system is a means by which potential employers can identify higher levels of ability/effort in candidates for jobs. Consequently
education here becomes a means to an end, which for the individual is a better job, and for companies a method by which they can ?screen? potential employees
If that is the purpose of assessment how does this relate to the study of philosophy? In other words, is philosophy just another elaborate way of getting access to better paid employment or should it be about something different. Philosophy and its study, in contrast to the nature of exams, should be an end in-itself, something which is done for its own sake, and which does not require any future ?reward? for its justification. If we, ultimately, do philosophy because it is an enriching/life enhancing activity though why do we need assessment at all? In something like medicine or law where there is a specific
task that requires proof of competence then the reason is obvious, but less so in philosophy. Some might argue that without assessment students would be deprived of the ?incentive? to work. Perhaps there would be people who without the threat of exams wouldn?t bother to study, but aren?t there plenty of people who do that now, with the incentive of assessment to work, anyway?
But isn't assessment necessary for determining who ought to be eligible for post graduate study? In answer to this I don?t see why post-grad work shouldn?t be open to anyone who can show sufficient enthusiasm for the subject and that they can take their study further. A series of interviews/discussions could establish the former without the need to subject everyone to any overarching
structure of assessment.
Furthermore it is not just that assessment is irrelevant to the real purpose of studying philosophy but that it is antithetical to it. The existence of assessment in philosophy serves to alienate students from the subject, by associating it with coercion rather than freedom. Without the threat of assessment, work could be something that is done for its own sake, and enjoyed as such precisely because it is done freely. Further students are more likely to see philosophy as end in-itself when the instrumental means-end mentality that currently pervades education is curtailed.
This process of alienation is also felt all the more keenly by those who for whatever reason are less successful in the ?examination game?. If you label someone a failure in something, even in relative terms, then the chances are they will direct their life and energies in other directions, away from philosophy. In any case who is to say that ?x is a better philosopher than y?, a tutor, an exam, a machine? The bottom line is that at degree level such questions ought to be irrelevant, even if we can say they are intelligible. The whole process of examination though encourages students to view education as a competitive struggle that is a means to the end of 'beating' others in the ?success game? rather than as an end-in-itself.
In short then, assessment, whether it be through exams or coursework, is not merely unnecessary but an alienating, inhibiting influence on the proper study of philosophy. What you would put in its place I can?t say exactly, besides the imperative that the subject is done for its own sake, and that teachers and tutors would be there to assist and discuss, not judge and assess. As for people eager to demonstrate what bright and hard working employees they will make, I can only suggest you do a degree in business studies or economics, after all its more likely to get you what you want.
David M